Subject: Re: FSM documentation strategy

From: "jim (j.) cobban" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:23:00 -0400

In message "Re: FSM documentation strategy", 
[email-masked]' writes:

>despite the fact that it rides on top of
		       ******************
>a "reliable" transport we need to be conservative in the design of the
***********************
>state machine. 
>	- Negative acknowledgements to speed up the 
>	  convergence if one chooses to implement SSP message retries.
>		CUR - I CAN'T REACH
  I would strongly disagree with a negative response to the broadcast CUR,
  since that would generate massive additional traffic
>		CONTACT - COULDN'T CONTACT
  This would only be useful in the situation where the DLSw has some means
  of knowing that there is no further value in retrying this contact
  attempt.  Otherwise it is merely impertinent.  Why should the target DLSw
  have a better idea of the retry interval than the originating DLSw.  While
  the burden on the network of the negative response is not excessive, there
  is clearly little value for introducing a possible backwards compatibility
  issue.
>	- Session level keepalives - during CONTACTED state.
>	  ( Could be overloaded later on for using as IPMs)
  This defeats much of the value of multiplexing on a single TCP pipe.  It
  generates additional network traffic which the WAN will really not
  appreciate.